Dr. Willimon, a Century editor at large, is minister
to the university and professor of the practice of Christian
ministry at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. This article appeared in the Christian CenturyJune 20-27, 1979 p 666. Copyright by the
Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and
subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for
Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

In the past ten years, the number of marriages
in the U.S. that end in divorce has doubled. While the rapid rise in the
divorce rate does appear to be leveling off as we end the 1970s, the numbers
confirm what most of us have already experienced among our own families,
friends and parishioners: that marital breakdown is a major phenomenon in
contemporary society.

Complex
Questions

Unfortunately, the church’s good intentions in
regard to marriage have often resulted in bad dealings with divorce. While
denouncing divorce, we have expended too little effort on improving the quality
of marriages, preparing people for marriage, and supporting couples in the
midst of marital difficulties. We must admit to the hypocrisy of condemning
divorce while at the same time condoning as “marriage” a relationship that is
little more than a cynical armistice, a mutual state of boredom, an arrangement
of legalized prostitution, or an excuse for the continued subjugation of women.
Too often we have been blind to the difficulties in marriage, treated divorced
persons as pariahs and, in general, approached the subject with the attitude
that “nice people like us don’t get divorced.”

But very many “nice people” in the church are
getting divorced. If marriage involves a creative, courageous, demanding,
risky act, then it also contains the possibility of failure. The acknowledgment
of that failure is called divorce, and it is a tough decision to live through.
A number of recent sociological and psychological studies seem to support Jacob
Epstein’s assertion in his book Divorced in America that “in divorce
there are only smaller and larger disasters.”

But despite available data on the trauma of
divorce, there are some who argue that, far from being an unmitigated evil,
divorce can be a good thing. Many people have come to view divorce as a natural
consequence of “personal growth” and the “attainment of selfhood.” Instead of
regarding divorce as a failure, Susan Gettleman and Janet Markowitz, authors of
The Courage to Divorce, contend that “all married couples should be
considered dependent, neurotic, and too fearful to divorce.” They ridicule the
often-cited analogy between divorce and death: “Why should people want to mourn
the ‘loss’ of someone they prefer to be rid of or have outgrown?”

The logic of such statements condoning divorce
is as fuzzy as the reasoning behind some of the old condemnations of that act.
There are more complex, more important human questions than have been addressed
by either the stern denunciations of divorce or the accommodating “cheap grace”
efforts to bless divorce -- or by the heralding of divorce as a liberation from
outmoded bourgeois morality. It is time for the church to address some of those
questions.

The Biblical Evidence

Malachi’s word from the Lord “I hate divorce”
(Mal. 2: 16a) to the contrary notwithstanding, divorce was permitted by
the Old Testament without stigma or litigation if the husband believed that his
wife had “some uncleanness in her.” In the rabbis’ interpretations,
“uncleanness” could denote an act of adultery (cf. Matt. 19:9), childlessness
(Mal. 2:15), or even an inability to cook well! A woman’s position was
extremely vulnerable.

Jesus’ thinking on the subject was different.
When questioned about divorce, he replied:

“Have you not read that he who made them from
the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined
together, let no man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses
command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to
them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but
from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife,
except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery” [Matt. 19:4-9].

Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 also show Jesus
taking a hard line against divorce.

In regard to the remarriage of divorced persons,
Matthew’s later version seems to show a softening of Jesus’ tougher stance in
Mark to allow for the extenuating circumstances of adultery. Paul, while simply
repeating what must have been regarded as an authentic and basic teaching of
Jesus against divorce, adds another extenuating circumstance: if one is married
to an unbeliever who demands a divorce, then one may remarry (I Cor. 7:15).

The biblical evidence indicates that Jesus
categorically condemns divorce and remarriage after divorce, basing his
prohibition on an appeal to God’s original intention in creation (“. . . from
the beginning it was not so”). Divorce is not part of the intended scheme of
things. Remarriage after divorce is called “adultery.” Some have suggested that
Jesus real concern here was with the abuse of women within the divorce
practices of the day. But there is no sidestepping the fact that Jesus condemns
divorce itself, not just its abuse, in the strongest possible words.

However, the biblical evidence shows also that
the church, after stating Jesus’ unequivocal demands on this subject, felt free
to permit some few exceptions, perhaps in a pastoral attempt to deal humanely
with specific marital situations while still upholding Jesus’ demand. Robert F.
Sinks has contended, in a Christian Century article (“A Theology of Divorce,”
April 20, 1977, pp. 377-378), that Jesus was taking a “situationist” stance in
which divorce might be deemed appropriate in order to fulfill “the law of
love.”

If Jesus allowed for breaking the honored Sabbath
lawswould he not also allow for a
suspension of the proscription against divorce if such were to liberate a
person from the bondage of an intolerable marriage? . . . does it not follow
that marriage was made for humanity, rather than humanity for marriage? If the
institution, important as it is, does violence to the individual, then
shouldn’t the institution be amended in order that the individual might
flourish?

A major problem with Sinks’s argument is that he
still has Jesus’ “hard sayings” on divorce to contend with. As is typical of
the “situationist” approach, rules and codes are jettisoned in favor of the broad,
unspecific, vague demands of “love.” Whether “love” alone is a sufficient basis
for ethical behavior, particularly when the larger society has a stake in what
happens to a marriage, is a matter which Sinks does not address.

It should be noted, however, that traditionally
the church has shown a relative lack of concern about that vague thing called
“love” -- particularly in regard to marriage and divorce. In the service of
holy matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer, the basis for most Protestant marriage
services, “love” is considered only one of the necessary requisites for
marriage. Other moral values such as selflessness, honor, fidelity, sacrifice,
permanence and commitment are also affirmed. Never does the minister ask “Do
you love each other?” The question is “Will you love . . . ?” Love is
assumed to be an act of the will.

I am particularly suspicious of situation
ethicists like Sinks when they plead the “Great Commandment as a basis for
ending a marriage “in order that the individual might flourish.” In today’s
consumer-oriented, capitalistic culture, where people are used, abused and
disposed of like nonreturnable soft-drink cans, where “liberation” has been
invoked to justify selfishness, it may be that the time has come for the church
to say again what it has always believed -- that there is no way for
individuals to “flourish” without the kind of communion and community and the
permanent, deep, risky commitment that true Christian love demands -- qualities
that are perhaps best experienced in the yoking of a man and a woman in
marriage.

The Two
Become One

Many church people, responding to the “hard
sayings” of Jesus, affirm a stand against divorce. We are not, however,
upholding an impossible, perfectionist ideal, an unrealistic interim ethic, or
a hardhearted legalistic command. In an irresponsible, pathologically
uncommitted age, any bond may seem unduly restrictive. We may be
rendering the greatest possible service to contemporary society in general and
to our struggling fellow Christians in particular when we uphold the bond of
marriage.

Jesus’ sayings about divorce seem to be grounded
in his perception of God’s original intention in creation: “From the beginning
it was not so.” Genesis 2 shows woman coming from the rib of man. This account in
no way implies superior or inferior status for the man or the woman. Originally
they were “one flesh” and, after creation of male and female, they now desire
to restore their oneness. This, for Genesis 2, is the basis of marriage. Sex is
reunion. Far from being a subservient afterthought, the woman is the
often-neglected half of the male’s incomplete image of God. Separation
is sin because it is a violation of this inherent, unifying purpose.

Good Jew that he was, Jesus was not able to
conceive that a man and a woman could be joined and then separated. That union
brings about an ontological transformation, a creation of a new entity which
cannot be dissolved through Moses’ certificate of divorce, We have here, in
Jesus’ prohibition of divorce, not so much a command but an invitation to
participate, through our marital unions, in the underlying, unifying purpose of
all creation.

The Old Israel and the New Israel, in
relationship to God, are frequently compared to a man and a woman in marriage
(Isa. 50:1, Hos. 2: i6-2o, John 3:29). Our fathers and mothers in faith before
us sensed that human marriage was an example, a human analogy for the union
which the Creator sought to bring about not only among individual men and women
but throughout the whole creation. Marriage is God doing in a man and a woman
what God is doing in all creation. That union is real, and to sever it is to
separate oneself from the union toward which God is moving us.

Undoing the Past

The comedian Jerry Lewis once remarked that the
best wedding gift which he and his wife received was a home movie of their
wedding ceremony. Now, whenever things are not going well for them, he takes
out the film, goes into his viewing room, locks the door, runs the film through
the projector backward, and walks out a free man! Sometimes we wish to God that
we could do that with our history.

Aquinas once wrote that even God shares one
limitation with us humans: “God cannot make what is past not to have been” (Summa
Contra Gentiles, II, 25, 1023). Time is neither cyclic nor illusory; it is
real, The past is behind us; the present is the time for decision; the future
is determined by the sum of all our yesterdays and todays. Jesus’ word on
forgiveness was not that what we do does not matter. His message was that the
future is not utterly determined by the past and that, through repentance and
conversion, we can receive the love of God despite what we have already done
with our lives.

J. R. Lucas, writing in Theology (May
1975, pp. 226-230), reminds us that our neophilic society is constantly telling
itself that the past is irrelevant and that our decisions are of no
consequence. But the facts of our lives cannot be ignored. We are the sum total
of all that we have been: past deeds, past promises, past loves. Even God
cannot wipe that away.

Some human transactions -- for example, a
business deal -- are adequately fulfilled in a brief encounter. Something is
promised and something is given and the matter is concluded. But marriage is a
relationship that extends “so long as ye both shall live.” The shared joys and
sorrows, the mutual secrets and hopes, the contract of marriage and the union it
effects have profound and continuing significance. Husband and wife may be
estranged, but they will never again be strangers. We can never be totally free
from a union once it is promised and participated in.

That is why it is not helpful to quibble over questions
of whether a given marriage is “real” or “valid” in the first place. If vows
were exchanged in freedom and sexual intercourse has occurred (it amazes me how
realistically and seriously the church has always taken sex!), then there has
been a marriage -- however unsatisfactory that marriage may have been. There
was meeting and union. A promise was made. Promises can be broken, but they can
never be retrieved. Such irrevocable deeds may be regretted or repented, but
they cannot be undone.

A Sign of Failure

Those whose marriages have broken down can
experience forgiveness and new beginnings, but only if they first recognize the
reality of what has been done and its continuing significance for their
situation. In my own pastoral counseling experiences, I have found that most
divorcing couples are realistic enough not to want superficial, cheap attempts
on the counselor’s part to heal their wounds lightly by telling them, in
effect, that their divorce and their prior marriage are unimportant. To tell them
this is to imply that all of their life’s deeds, promises and loves are without
value. There will be no future healing if a couple delude themselves, through a
pastor’s misguided attempts to provide loving support, into thinking that their
divorce is a momentary inconvenience which is best forgotten rather than a
broken relationship which will exert continuing influence on their lives. As
Henri Nouwen says: “To forget our sins may be an even greater sin than to
commit them. Why? Because what is forgotten cannot be healed easily becomes the
cause of greater evil” (The Living Reminder, p. 17). We cannot face God
unless we first face these facts of our lives which are unalterable and which
will be of continuing relevance. “One flesh” is an empirical, experiential
reality.

Helen Oppenheimer has spoken of the inherently
unnatural, painful nature of divorce:

. . . a broken marriage is a broken marriage;
something that stands out as an unnatural smashing of what was built to last, a
blasphemy against the unity of Christ and his church, an amputation inflicted
upon a living body. . . . The bond of marriage is indeed a real bond, affecting
those who are joined in it for evermore. It can never be neatly untied, only
harshly severed. When this injury has happened, the practical question is how
the wound can best be healed, and the temptation is always either to cover it
soothingly up at a grave risk of festering, or to keep it open forever as a
warning to others [Theology, May 1975, p. 242].

I have always regarded “a friendly divorce” as
an emotional non sequitur. There is something vaguely immoral about two people
joining together in wedlock, sharing everything they have, beginning a home,
and then one day politely shaking hands and amicably going their separate ways.
Let us be honest about divorce, viewing it only as a painful last resort,
rarely “good” or “right” in the eyes of God. Divorce is not a satisfactory
solution for times when marriage becomes difficult, when love is tested, or
when vows are hard to keep. Marriage can be difficult, but so can divorce. We
have been relatively candid in recent years about the risk of marriage; now let
us be honest about the risk of divorce! Divorce is a sign of failure and of the
presence of evil. A union was severed; love was overcome; a promise was not
kept.

A Note of Judgment

The practical burden upon pastors and
parishioners in dealing with divorce (and with marriage) is to be bold in
holding to the will of God as we see it expressed in marriage and at the same
time audaciously doing God’s will by loving those in the throes of divorce.
There will always be a note of judgment in the church’s dealings with divorce.
If it is not there, we run the risk dishonesty and unfaithfulness. We are
called to faith, hope and love in our dealings with God, women and men. But
many of our “cheap grace” dealings with divorce, such as the experimental
United Methodist “Ritual for the Divorced” (Ritual in a New Day [Abingdon,
1977]), speak more of our irresponsibility and unfaithfulness than of our love.

Our word to divorced persons must be that the
failure and evil inherent in divorce (or any other human separation) would
destroy us were it not for the fact that God keeps his promises and continues
his love even when we break our promises and our love fails. The past cannot be
erased, but it can be forgiven. Even the most grave wounds can be healed.
Life’s painful actions of “last resort” can be done not by rationalizing away
the difficulties of the moral situation but by firmly relying on the grace of
God. “Love God and sin boldly,” Luther says.

While St. Augustine did not know everything
about love, sex and marriage (and much of what he wrote on these subjects is
less than helpful), he did know a great deal about the grace of God. He knew
that our noblest attempts to risk ourselves and to do the good are doomed to
failure unless we rely on God’s grace to aid us. He knew that our great
failures to do the good can utterly crush us unless we rely on the grace of God
to forgive us. I think the saint’s words to those of us involved in the risk of
marriage and in the risk of divorce might be the same as those he
addressed to the struggling Christians of his own day:

God does not impose impossible things, but by
manifesting his command, he urges you to do what you can and to pray for what
you can not yet do; by so doing you fulfill the will of God [On Nature and
Grace, 43, 50].